Reader comments · US: Republican Representative plans constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


US: Republican Representative plans constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why do these people care? Don’t they have anything better to be doing?

    1. They’re pandering to an extremist core base as part of preparation to becoming an angry “white” minority party.

  2. i just don’t understand the hate. It seems more institutionalised in the US.

    1. I think it’s possibly similar to what’s happening in the UK – the tides are turning against marriage equality opponents and they’re desperately clutching at straws. Over here that gets expressed as MPs/Lords proposing ridiculous amendments to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill, over in the US some politician tries to create a ridiculous constitutional amendment.

  3. Jock S. Trap 27 Jun 2013, 11:41am


    How exactly does it affect him if he’s heterosexual (debatable)?

    I tell ya this is about power and control and clearly the fear of loosing it. It’s a typical response from control freaks in relationships and in state.

    Still he’ll probably be caught with his pants down at some point.

    1. Metsän poika 27 Jun 2013, 1:00pm

      “How exactly does it affect him if he’s heterosexual (debatable)?”

      I have my doubts if he even qualifies as a human!

    2. Jock, there is a pic on the currently (article about gay marriage) with a guy holding up a poster proclaiming: “If I can’t marry my boyfriend, then I’ll marry your daughter” – he has two daughters :-) I wonder if that would help change his mind.

    3. You are absolutely correct, Jock. His proposed campaign is not about justice, or even morality; it is about the power to be able to dictate, at will, to the masses.

      Your Lord Acton expressed it quite clearly, when he said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…”

      In the past, we were the ever convenient, unknown monster under the bed that the Republican party could use to manipulate voters into supporting their platform of unbridled power. That has passed. The public has finally been exposed to the monster, and behold, they’ve discovered that we’re people, just like them, with the same hopes and desire to love and be loved by the person of our choice.

      His actions are the makings of a classic Greek tragedy and I don’t want to be within a hundred miles of him, when his hubris is finally dealt with, by Ate.

  4. my only explanation is they have spent their whole self loathing lives denying themselves their natural born sexuality – so they are damned if the rest of us are going to benefit….

  5. I think given that support for LGBT rights is growing in the US, this may not succeed.

    On the other hand, anything is possible so I hope that it doesn’t succeed.

    Another Republican showing himself to be out of touch with many Americans.

    1. Bobbleobble 27 Jun 2013, 11:51am

      It’s got no chance of succeeding. It needs 290 votes in the House of Representatives which is possibly just about doable but then it needs 67 votes in the Senate. Currently 54 Senators (I think) support marriage equality including Senate leader Harry Reid who won’t bring this to a vote there. Even if the Democrats lose the Senate in 2016 the chances that those supporting SSM would be reduced below 33 is infinitesimally small.

      I also suspect 38 states ratifying the amendment should this somehow sneak through the Senate is impossible. There are currently 13 states plus DC that either already or will soon allow same sex couples to marry. None of them are likely to back an amendment to overturn that. There are also states such as New Jersey, Hawaii possibly Oregon and others where whilst they don’t have SSM they wouldn’t support an amendment.

      Changing the US constitution is really difficult.

      1. bobbleobble 27 Jun 2013, 11:52am

        Oops I meant if the Democrats lose the Senate in 2014!

        1. They need 67 votes, that will never happen.

  6. This one man thinks he can single-handedly change the constitution??
    Good luck mate

  7. Metsän poika 27 Jun 2013, 11:51am

    In this guys Wikipedia entry, he is tagged at the bottom of the page as ‘Notable bigot’ and it is in red. What a laugh!

    He is the only one listed so far, I think there are a few in the House of Lords that could be added, starting with Baroness Knight.

  8. That There Other David 27 Jun 2013, 11:56am

    What exactly do the voters of Kansas pay this man to do, represent them or head off down the crazy road with personal fools’ crusades?

    What a massive waste of time and effort, all funded by the US taxpayer.

  9. keith francis farrell 27 Jun 2013, 12:00pm

    These people always have something to hide. wonder what it is in his case, could it be drugs or just stupidity

    1. Well, he doesn’t appear to be hiding his stupidity so it must be drugs :)

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Jun 2013, 12:09pm

    Another religious delusional loon, not going to happen, get over it, Huelskamp and do something useful for a change.

  11. This is for show. Sandgroper asks why the hate – the answer’s simple. Cash.

    Talking FMA gets headlines and campaign funds. There is zero chance of an FMA being passed. They couldn’t get an FMA through fifteen years ago and they won’t even come close now.

    The House will reject an FMA, and the Senate will reject it by miles – but even if Congress passed it, an FMA would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. But 13 out of the 50 now have marriage equality. Ratification by 38 states is inconceivable now.

    The anti-gay groups know an FMA is impossible. But expect even formerly “realpolitik” groups like NOM to start talking crazy about this very shortly.

    It’s going to be a long, slow dogfight for our side (fifteen years?) but we will never lose interest because our happiness is at stake. And so we will win.

    But mainstream support for the antis is drying up. They will get increasingly extreme – not to win, they know they can’t – but to keep getting paid.

    1. The Kitty Channel 27 Jun 2013, 12:41pm

      Great reply, atalanta, I really appreciate your explanation.

  12. “Earlier this year Mr Huelskamp claimed 70% of Americans oppose marriage equality”…and that was just in his own family!

    Mr. Huelskamp, the other marching band members have just pivoted to the left, and you’ve pivoted right…and face-planted into the outside walls of the Supreme Court building.

    Assclown is too kind a word for you, but I’m in a generous mood.

  13. This would never get 2/3 majority in the Senate and Obama would veto it if by some miracle it did pass.
    I’m sure he has the support of fine citizens like Westboro Baptist Church but most normal people have moved on.

    1. I don’t think the President has any involvement in the constitutional amendment process, but any amendment would have to be ratified by at least three quarters of the states (i.e., all but 12 of them) to take effect. Since 13 states have already legalised same-sex marriage, and several others (Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, etc.) would be very unlikely to support such an amendment, it’s very hard to see it being successful.

  14. Another Roman Catholic betraying his fellow american countrymen by taking orders from a foreign pope.

  15. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Jun 2013, 1:16pm

    Although an important part of DOMA has been struck down, the reality is, it isn’t completely dead. Let’s not forget the 37 states where there is no same-sex marriage. Couples living in those states who leave to marry in any of the 13 or Washington DC will return to their respective states and will be without state benefits and rights. That’s another law that is going to have to be struck down before full marriage equality really has true meaning. It’s still going to be a few years before equal marriage is legal in all 50 states.

    1. Things are progressing, let’s just not slow down the pace.

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 27 Jun 2013, 2:02pm

        I agree, but the reality is, DOMA hasn’t completely gone yet. Many think it has.

        1. That There Other David 27 Jun 2013, 4:49pm

          Indeed. The Respect for Marriage Act still needs to pass to remove the rest of DOMA’s articles from law.

  16. hank kelly 27 Jun 2013, 1:56pm

    Another one of America’s nutjobs. I don’t give a rats toenail who they love. I wish they would stop losing sleep about who I love.

  17. Jen Marcus 27 Jun 2013, 2:02pm

    Given the historic shift of opinion of LGBT people in the US, especially among the younger generation ,this amendment has about as much of a chance of getting traction and passing as a”snowball in hell!” Eventually, all these right wing, religious bigots will just fade away!

  18. This amendment has no realistic chance of succeeding. Pushing this is an act of sheer spite. It’s a “message bill” – using the political process to wave a middle finger and not much more.

  19. Dear Mr. Huelskamp,

    It’s over, done with, and history has moved on. Your party’s traditional whipping boy/bogey man has been granted full recognition and privileges, at last.

    Now, if you still insist on holding this caucus to reverse the decision, I would suggest holding it at the La Brea Tar Pits, in Los Angeles, a fitting resting place for dinosaurs, like yourself.

  20. Tim Crowhurst 27 Jun 2013, 7:47pm

    Won’t happen.

    Amendments to the US Constitution need to get over 3 big hurdles: 2/3 supermajorities in both House (290/435) & Senate (67/100) and 3/4 supermajority of the states (38/50).

    That means just 13 states can block an amendment, and there are already that many which either have marriage equality already, or are waiting for a change in the law to take effect. There are also at least 7 where it could be legalised within the next few years.

    There simply aren’t enough states to pass a DOMA amendment to the US constitution.

  21. Evil, hateful man!

  22. Janet Lameck 28 Jun 2013, 12:01am

    He’d better have his NEXT job planned because his term in office just came to an END!

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.